RAS question
The Tenth Schedule was amended by the 91st Amendment to remove the exemption for:
Correct answer: (C) Splits (one-third members forming a separate group).
The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 removed the Tenth Schedule exemption for splits, where at least one-third of a legislature party formed a separate group.
Explanation
The anti-defection question turns on the difference between a split and a merger under the Tenth Schedule. The cited Law Commission report states that Paragraph 3 originally protected members from disqualification when a split involved not less than one-third of the members of their legislature party. That protection was criticised because splits were being engineered to escape the anti-defection law. The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 therefore omitted Paragraph 3 altogether. The same report also notes that Paragraph 4, dealing with mergers, was not deleted and continues as an exception where not less than two-thirds of the members agree to the merger. So the removed exemption was the one-third split exemption, not the merger exception.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Nominated members are not the removed Paragraph 3 exemption; the amendment discussed here targeted engineered one-third splits in legislature parties.
- (B) Mergers are wrong because the Law Commission report says Paragraph 4 on mergers was not deleted and continues as an exception, subject to the two-thirds requirement.
- (D) Independent candidates are not the Paragraph 3 category removed by the Ninety-first Amendment; the deleted exemption concerned splits by one-third members of a legislature party.
Concept
This tests the anti-defection provisions of the Tenth Schedule, especially the distinction between split and merger. It recurs in RAS because constitutional amendments and legislative disqualification rules are standard polity favourites.